Joseph Sickert was right about the Ripper

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Joseph Sickert was right about the Ripper

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Joseph Sickert was right about the Ripper

	SUBTOPIC	MSGS	Last Updated
	Archive through February 17, 2000	20	02/17/2000 06:37am

Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 18 February 2000 - 04:45 am
Stewart - Many thanks for the correction regarding the detail of Richardson's boot-cutting, and the valuable reminder that it was light enough for him to see a padlock on the cellar door from the steps. No question of it being too dark to see a body! All the best Guy
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Friday, 18 February 2000 - 08:45 am
"Instantaneous rigor" or "cadaveric spasm" was mentioned in a field manual for detectives written by Capt. Steven Luchansky, Pa. State Police Investigator (Ret.). Apparently, "instantaneous rigor" featured prominently in a case where time of death could not be adequately established. I thank Mr. Evans for jogging it from my memory. I do not know how often this state occurs, but it may well be the case here. By the way, didn't one of the other victims demonstrate this kind of spasm? I seem to recall Martha Tabram (whom I believe should be added to the list of canonical victims) had her hands bunched up in this manner. Help here?
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Friday, 18 February 2000 - 04:46 pm
Hello Stewart, Guy, et all. Thank you for your responses, especially Stewart. My interest in the time of death in both Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly stems from the fact that in both cases the medical men are either wrong and witnesses are correct or the opposite is true. Dr. Phillips is wrong because Elizabeth Long is right yet Dr. Bond is right and Caroline Maxwell is wrong. What is the truth to this mystery within a mystery? Especially since my study of time of death has led me to some fairly firm conclusions. Stewart you, and others, have mentioned that Sugden has disagreed with Dr Phillips' assessment and has agreed with the witnesses. Fair enough, Sugden does hold that cachet and I will bow to him if his reasons are persuasive, but, what does Sugden say about Dr. Phillips? "In the first place the doctor's estimate of the time of death is far from conclusive. It was not based, as such judgements are today, on the internal body temperature of the deceased, taken rectally or from the liver, but upon an estimate from touch only of the external body temperature coupled with impressions as to how far rigor mortis had advanced. But there were several factors present in this case which would have contributed to rapid heat loss. The morning of 8 September was fairly cold. Annie's clothes had to be thrown up to expose her legs and lower abdomen to the air. Her abdomen had been entirely laid open. And(sic)she had lost a great deal of blood. At the inquest Phillips himself qualified his estimate by acknowledging the existence of such imponderables and he may have easily have underrated their significance. If he did Annie was killed after, not before, 4:30." Add to this Coroner Baxter's comments on Dr. Phillips during his summation: "It was true that Dr. Phillips thought that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admitted that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion, and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct, Dr. Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces." It is likely that Sugden did very little research into Forensic Pathology and even more likely that he based his objections to Dr. Phillips on what the doctor conceded as well as what the Coroner had to say. Both men question Phillips based on body temperature alone. This has become the standard by which Dr. Phillips's opinions have been judged and as I have already stated, a judgement based on body temperature alone is, in this case, totally useless. What we seem to have here is something similar to what Guy stated earlier: "All in all, I believe that an absolute acceptance of Phillips' time-of-death estimate throws up more problems than it solves..." That seems to be it in a nutshell, it is more problematic to try and determine whether Dr. Phillips was right than it is to just accept the now status quo. As for cadaveric spasm (instantaneous rigor), I hadn't mentioned it because it doesn't seem to fit the facts in this case. Annie Chapman was first strangled to death or unconsciousness before her throat was cut and complete cadaveric spasm is so rare that I find it hard to accept it as a plausible answer. As for other anomalies or the widely varying effects of the condition, I didn't mention them because as I said, I didn't want to go into another in depth posting on time of death as it only seems to lead to uninformed ridicule (present company excepted). Wolf.
Author: Christopher T. George Friday, 18 February 2000 - 06:25 pm
Hi, all: This may be a total red herring and may not relate at all to the situation in 1888 but I note that in the first detail of the 1929 Goad's map that Stewart has posted last evening, after he posted the photograph of the back steps of no. 29, a "club" is marked as being on the first floor of premises close to the murder site, with a gown factory on the second floor of the same building. These premises are situated across the alley northwest of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Does Stewart or Viper, or anyone else, know if this club was there at the time of the murder on the morning of 8 September 1888? If this club was indeed there in 1888, could there be any significance in the fact that Annie Chapman was killed near a (presumably men's) club, as were Liz Stride and Kate Eddowes? If this relationship did exist, of course, it may merely denote that prostitutes, the Ripper's prey, were to be found near such clubs, so that the vicinity of men's clubs were a ripe "killing ground" for him. Just a potentially interesting observation! Chris George
Author: mark.coldwell Friday, 18 February 2000 - 06:30 pm
as a newcomer to this murder i would like to thank both mr stewart and wolf for helping to solve the riddle of phillips time of death/witnesses wrong argument. instantanious rigor would certainly be a valid explanation and vindicate the truthfulness of the 3 witnesses, perhaps one small piece solved of this never ending jigsaw.thanks also stewart for the photo/maps earlier i cannot but notice the distinct lack of photos generally available, especially late 19th/early 20th c of the murder scenes, any reasons for this,or am i just looking in the wrong places.
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 18 February 2000 - 06:52 pm
Both Phil Sugden and Jim Tully are friends of mine and I am well aware of their arguments, pro and con, regarding various aspects of the murders. I do not agree with both of them on every point, Phil is an academic and Jim an ex-bank worker and special constable. With nearly 28 years of practical police service behind me I do interpret certain things a different way. I most certainly do not agree with Jim Tully's arguments for an earlier time of death and I do even think they are very good. It would appear from Dr Phillips' evidence that the main factor deciding time of death for him was the body temperature, with the mention of 'the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing' added as an afterthought. The on scene examinations by the doctors were not very thorough as was shown by Dr Llewellyn when he failed to find the abdominal mutilations when he attended the Nichols' murder a week previously. Dr Phillips main task was to pronounce the body dead and note any obvious signs of injury and violence before the body was moved to the mortuary for the more detailed post-mortem. The incidence of instantaneous rigor or cadaveric spasm is by no means rare, and in this case there is no question at all of 'complete cadaveric spasm' as he mentions only the limbs. The cause of death, I agree, was possibly strangulation but this has no effect on cadaveric spasm. You don't have to be shot or have your throat cut to exhibit cadaveric spasm. Indeed, death from vagal inhibition (in strangulation) can be as instant as any form of death. And there is every likelihood that Chapman would be tightly gripping the sleeves of her attacker's coat in an attempt to pull his hands from her throat. That this was probably the case is confirmed in the evidence of James Kent, one of the two men called by John Davis when he first found the body. When seen by Kent the body had not been touched and he deposed - "...the face of the deceased was visible. Her clothes were disarranged, and the apron she was wearing appeared to have been thrown over the clothes. Witness did not go down the steps, and believed no other person entered the yard until the inspector (Chandler) came. He could see that the deceased was dead. She had a handkerchief of some kind round her throat. He could not see any blood, but she was besmeared with blood over the face and hands, as though she had been struggling. He did not notice any other injuries. Her hands were raised and bent, with the palms towards the upper portion of her body, as though she had fought for her throat. There were marks of blood about her legs..." Again, sorry Wolf, but your arguments fail to convince. It seems pretty obvious to me that the good doctor was mistaken in his estimate of time of death. Of course, similar arguments can be made in the case of Kelly where there is evidence of a struggle. The simple answer to your conundrum is indeed that Dr Phillips was wrong in his estimate. The evidence seems to indicate that Dr Phillips probably later thought the same himself!
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 02:37 am
Sorry for the typo in the above, second paragraph, first sentence, should read - "...and I do not even think they are very good." Thank you.
Author: The Viper Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 07:34 am
Chris, The club you refer to derives its access to the main street from the yard at 23A Hanbury Street. The only reference I have to this address in 1888 is for �Joseph and Thomas Bayley, Packers�. I did take a look at the 1873 and 1894 Ordnance maps of the area. Unfortunately the scale is 1:4340 so the detail is both limited and hard to discern. It does appear though that the club building went in some time between the surveys for the two maps. As you are aware, a good deal of infilling occurred in the area in Victorian times. If the building existed in 1888 there must be a good chance that it was used by the Bayleys. When trying to trace the Imperial Club last October I checked the names and addresses of London clubs and don�t remember seeing anything for Hanbury Street. An address so close to a murder site ought to have taken my eye. Will check it out again next week for you, also the usage of the premises for 1894 and 1929. Should anything of interest turn up it will be posted here. Regards, V.
Author: mark.coldwell Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 09:28 am
while on the general subject of pathology theories let me run off a small theory to some of the above experts, it concerns john richardson, whilst sitting on the middle step presumebly leaning forward cutting leather off his boot, the position of his head must have only been say no more than a metre and a half away from where the body was laying(if you believe the time of death by dr phillips)ok i can twist my arm around my back and force myself to say that perhaps he did not see the body, after all there was no moonlight or any adequate lighting in the backyard,but with his head being so close to the body could he have smelt the body. im sure somewhere i've seen/read that the various chemicals in the body extrude a pungent odour especially from the stomach which must have been ripped open. can anyone shed any light on this, or have i been watching too many episodes of columbo.
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 10:42 am
In my experience, blood in the moonlight appears quite black, and at first glance can easily be mistaken for water. However, in my opinion, it's almost impossible for Richardson not to see - or smell - the remains of Annie Chapman. If the mutilations described are accurate, I am sure fecal matter would be exposed to the open air and assault the olfactory senses of Mr. Rchardson. Also, to many, blood has a distinct "coppery" taste and odor. It's very difficult for me to believe Richardson could have missed Chapman's body, especially if he indeed sat down and cut leather from his boot.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 04:05 pm
Hello Stewart et all. Well this is very familiar territory for me, being disbelieved but I soldier on. Stewart let's just agree to disagree on time of death but I did notice a couple of things regarding the evidence of James Kent. First, he says that, "Her hands were raised and bent, with the palms towards the upper portion of her body, as though she had fought for her throat." or in the Daily Telegraph it is reported as, "The face and hands were besmeared with blood, as if she had struggled. She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat." Inspector Chandler: "...the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side." Dr. Phillips: " The left arm was across the left breast...", no mention of the right arm. I don't doubt him or what he had to say but I find it hard to jibe his description with those of Inspector Chandler and Dr. Phillips. One other thing. If Chapman's body had been subject to cadaveric spasm and this was evident in the hands and limbs, we have another little mystery. According to Dr. Phillips's evidence, his P.M. observations showed, "The stiffness of the limbs was then well-marked....On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the bend of the first joint of the ring finger, and there were distinct markings of a ring or rings - probably the latter." Now, if cadaveric spasm had occurred in Chapman's left hand and we know that her rings had been wrenched off her finger then the only way to do this would be to break the rigor in that finger if not several fingers on that hand but this didn't happen. Evidently when the rings were removed from her finger rigor was not evident. Wolf.
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 06:35 pm
It's nice to see that this debate has continued in a sensible manner, and it is also nice to see that Wolf resorts to the contemporary reports. As is the case with all the inquest reports they vary in detail from paper to paper and also as to the amount reported. This depended on what the reporter took down in the court by shorthand, or as to what he felt was important or interesting. I do have all the Times and Daily Telegraph reports as well as several others. In my opinion, and speaking from practical experience, it is very possible that someone had moved an arm before Chandler made notes of the position. It must remain a moot point as the evidence is contradictory. Essentially the report of Davis' evidence from the Daily Telegraph is the same as the one I quoted from the Times. And Davis was present before Chandler and the doctor were even called for. The stiffness of the limbs commented on by Dr Phillips at the post mortem would, by then (that afternoon), be true rigor mortis and thus very well marked. Cadaveric spasm is not rigor mortis and you can't 'break' it as may be the case with true rigor. The finger would probably have just 'sprung' anyway. Regarding rigor mortis and having taken the rings and clothing off dead bodies I can assure you that true rigor is not that easy to 'break' anyway. You can force a bent arm, leg or finger straight, then when you let go it bends back again. It is easy to forcibly remove a ring and still leave the rigor present without 'breaking it'. However, as I have said, this would not have been the case here anyway as it would have been muscular spasm. I remember an undertaker at a sudden death I attended jumping up and down on the legs of a corpse in an effort to straighten them to get the body into the shell. He failed! As you say Wolf, we will have to agree to disagree, but thank you for an intelligent discussion.
Author: Thomas Ind Saturday, 19 February 2000 - 07:08 pm
I didn't realise that this conversation had turned into a medical one and have ignored it because of general disinterest in the subject heading. It may take me a bit of time to go back and read the posts. In answer to Marks question. I don't think a dead body of such short a time would smell. Faeces are a different matter and bowel contents smell very bad. However, I imagine that the general conditions of the area at that time (and even now!) would been that such a smell would be considered the norm.
Author: The Viper Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 04:23 pm
Chris, To tidy up the business about the club shown on the Goad plan of Hanbury Street, I can now confirm that it was called the New Criterion Social Club. The secretary�s name was Sydney Steinburg. Since the club is unlisted before 1924 it can have no relevance to the Chapman murder. Regards, V.
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 24 February 2000 - 03:34 pm
Hi, Viper: Thank you so much for that information. Indeed, it does seem that Jacky did not stumble out of the door of the New Criterion Social Club drunk and disorderly on the morning of 8 September 1888 in order to slaughter Annie Chapman. The club it seems was not there then. Ah well. . . Chris
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 25 February 2000 - 09:46 am
Hi , I'm back and thanks for continuing the disussion. More forthcoming on Monday
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 28 February 2000 - 09:00 am
Hello again , I'm back from my Spanish holiday. Here is my argument against Chapman being killed c. 2.30 am.( sorry Wolf ). We have ascertained that the cold morning of 8th September 1888 could have delayed rigor mortis setting in , however I believe it would require refrigeration to prevent rigor being apparent 4 hours later. Also the night of 7-8th September was NOT cold , it started cloudy then became fine. I'm going to assert that the morning of the 8th probably wasn't that cold either ( controversial ) , rather it just FELT cold. The night had been fine thus possibly it had been warmish as well , and when the morning came it was probably a bit brisk due to lack of cloud cover. The change in temperatures probably made the morning seem colder than it really was. Is that clear ? Evidence for the fact that it wasn't really that cold on that morning : John Richardson spent several minutes trimming his boot on the back yard step. Albert Cadosh spent several minutes in his back yard before going to work. If it had been very cold , surely these two wouldn't have tarried and they would have gone back inside rather quickly ? And finally , John Davis entered the yard half-dressed with this trouser belt in his hand ; if it had been that cold , surely he would have dressed fully first before going outside ?
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 28 February 2000 - 09:22 am
Dr Phillips said he could have been wrong about the time of death of Chapman , but what we must remember is that he had 20 years experience of seeing cases like these ; it seems unlikely that he would be more than an hour out in either direction. Rapid body cooling AND instantaneous rigor ? Perhaps one or the other but surely not both at the same time ; yeah its possible , but surely its not likely ? I can't see how Mrs Long could be right about seeing Chapman at 5.30 am , she would have been dead if only for a few minutes. Mrs Long did not know Chapman I believe , due to the disparity in their personal situations. Mrs Long was an honest married woman. She saw a prostitute talking to her client outside 29 Hanbury Street , she wouldn't have taken much notice - why would she want to ? Later she recalls the woman she saw bore a resemblance to Chapman. My suggestion is that Cadosh heard a prostitute and her client in the yard c.5.28 am as noted in a previous posting. Mrs Long saw the same prostitute and her client outside the yard a couple of minutes later confirming another date.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 28 February 2000 - 09:34 am
I have more information about the blood in the passage. In his official police report , Inspector Chandler does not mention searching the passage before he searched the yard. Dr Phillips did NOT search the yard and passage before the body of Chapman was removed by a wheeled stretcher. Thus the blood in the passage is still a mystery : since the body had been removed before Phillips , and probably Chandler as well , searched the passage - if the blood came from the removal of Chapman's body , why did Phillips and Chandler not find it ? Both of them found no blood in the passage. But if the blood came from the body being removed then it had been deposited there , all ready for them to find ; they found nothing. Thus it is possible that the body of Chapman could have been moved into the passage and left a blood deposit after all ; it seems likely Phillips and Chandler did not make a thorough search of the passage and it was left to the reporter of the East London Advertiser to make the discovery.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 28 February 2000 - 10:35 am
All I want to try and show about the Annie Chapman murder is that it is POSSIBLE her body was mutilated elsewhere and moved into the yard to be found by John Davies at 6am. I am willing to accept she was killed in the yard. I think this is the most likely explanation and confirms the statements of Dr Phillips and John Richardson , while not contradicting Albert Cadosh. It involves no mutilation during daylight hours , no instantaneous rigor , no odd delays in rigor setting in , it helps to explain why the murderer was not caught while committing the deed. What is the evidence specifically against this theory ?
Author: mark.coldwell Monday, 28 February 2000 - 02:33 pm
simon, you make a fair point about the weather on the morn.of the 8th,as the official forecast states a bright morning with 30%cloud cover.london in early sept was still late summer, so therefore we can assume that the night/morn.conditions would have been reasonable. the effects on a delay of rigor mortis would have been minimal.however we cannot ignore the rapid loss of blood as this would have cooled the body increasing the estimate of time of death,this however would not i believe effect instantanious rigor, so i disagree with what you said earlier that its unlikely that you can get both rapid cooling of the body and inst. rigor, i think its reasonable that both conditions happened. you also mention Dr phillips and his 20 years of experience(23 years as police surgeon),is instantanious rigor a new concept,not known at the time? if so then who knows how many times he or his profession have been wrong in estimating times of deaths! personally i think the reason that he began to re-evaluate the TOD was because he was trying to safeguard his profesional standing,after all his stated time of death at the inquest effectively ruled out 3 witnesses,even the coroner questioned the validity of phillips TOD by saying that he could have "miscalculated the effect of those forces"(loss of blood/coldness etc)this brings up another problem if he miscalculated for the reasons that the coroner stated then as have been stated in above discussions this would have increased the onset of rigor mortis(by which the good doctor made his TOD estimate)therby as the Dr was trying to backpeddle his TOD he was effectively increasing the TOD margin.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 29 February 2000 - 08:44 am
Although I didn't say it specifically I feel that the above statements I made contradict the theory that Chapman was killed after 5.30am ; for algor mortis ( the cooling of the corpse temperature to match its surroundings ) to have rapidly increased in this case I believe that the morning would have had to be extremely cold and that blood loss alone would not have caused this cooling. If anyone has evidence to the contrary then I am happy to be proved wrong ! It is my assertion that the morning FELT colder than it actually was due to the warm night preceeding it and the change in temperature to that of a brisk morning accentuated this feeling : it seems unlikely a very cold morning could follow a warm night. Since the coroner did decide to believe the witnesses , I believe this placed Dr Phillips in an awkward position with his professional judgement questioned as mark says ; it is hardly suprising then he was forced to admit that adverse factors could have affected the body and he stated he could have been wrong about his judgement. As to instant rigor , I believe it has been stated that it mainly occurs in the hands at the time of a violent death. This may be true in Liz Stride's case ( she was clutching a bag of cachews ) but I don't believe it was so in Chapmans due to the removal of the rings by the murderer and her open palms ( although there is some discrepancy over this ).
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 29 February 2000 - 09:13 am
In the Annie Chapman case then , we have serious differences of opinion as to the time of death ; seemingly it could have occurred any time between 2.30 am and 5.30 am. Inspector Chandler doubted John Richardson's statement because it did not tally with that of Mrs Long and Dr Phillip's time of death , but Cadosh's statement does not tally either then. SOMEBODY MUST BE WRONG ! I feel it is probably Mrs Long because of the reasons I have outlined above , remember a mistaken identification of Chapman had been made already in the Ten Bells pub at 5.00 am. IF Richardson AND Phillips AND Kadosh are all correct then the theory that the body was moved into the yard post 5.30 am becomes not only possible but THE MOST PLAUSIBLE theory relating to the Chapman case , if not THE ONLY POSSIBLE THEORY !!! I believe the theory of an early death is supported by the fact that NO-ONE AT ALL seems to have seen Chapman between 2am and 5am on the night she was killed. And yet ( with the possible exception of Kelly , although this is dubious ) all the other victims had been witnessed by SOMEONE at least half an hour before their demises. In the East End that night it was a fine night with some moonlight , surely somebody would have seen Annie Chapman - but nobody did. How can we explain this ? I suspect she may have been picked up , taken somewhere and questioned , possibly in a carriage. When it was found she didn't know anything she was killed and the Ripper took his wrath out on her , then the body was dumped. Ah , but then what was she have supposed to have known? That is a question !
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 29 February 2000 - 09:33 am
Since this discussion is about Joseph Sickert , can I just return to him for a moment ? Joseph has never denied - despite his disavowal of everything else - that he believes he is Walter Sickert's son and that his maternal grandfather was the Duke of Clarence. He remains clear that this is so. The evidence against this being true seems to hinge on Eddy being out of the country at the time Alice Crook ( Joseph's mother ) was concieved , he was in Heidelberg with his tutor. But I have discovered that Eddy returned to Britain on August 18th ; if Alice was concieved on this date then she could have been born at the appropriate time , although she would have been four weeks premature. It is not impossible a slightly premature baby could have survived in the 1880s. Another theory is that Annie Crook could have been taken abroad to stay with Eddy or to visit him , the baby could have been concieved on this visit. Didn't Henry VIIIth smuggle Anne Boleyn out with him to some conference in the 16th century , this is possibly when Elizabeth I was concieved. My Tudor history is a bit rusty so I'm not sure. But if Eddy was very much in love with Annie Crook it seems likely she could have been smuggled out to meet him , perhaps even by J.K. Stephen.
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 29 February 2000 - 10:37 am
But then again, if he'd never set eyes on her in his entire life...
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 05:47 am
Incidentially , I can now explain about the information from the True Detective Article being in Abberline's diary ( it wasn't ) but sadly the answer is not good for my theory. Let me quote Melvyn Fairclough on this one : " I don't believe for a moment that they ( the diaries ) are in Abberline's own hand , a fact obvious , even to the non-expert , when they are compared to Abberline's copperplate , handwritten reports in the PRO. When I proposed this to Joseph ( Sickert ) he said that maybe Abberline asked someone else to write the texts. One of my greatest regrets and sadnesses regarding Joseph came after my book ( The Ripper and the Royals , Duckworth , 1991 ) was published. He had given me , in his own handwriting , family background information about the Ripper's victims and said that the information had come from Abberline...Neal Sheldon brought to my attention that what Joseph had told me...was almost word for word , including minor errors , the same as that written by Sheldon himself in an article that I never saw , published in True Detective two years before my book. I felt very let down and that Joseph had certainly made me look foolish...Nevertheless I felt the account ( Sickert's Ripper theory ) was a good one and I felt certain Joseph honestly believed it to be true " ( Pages 155-156 , The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper ' , clarifications in brackets mine ). Thus the diary does not contain the True Detective information which seems to have been given to Fairclough to discredit him , leaving the possibility open that it was created in the 1920s , shortly before Joseph was given it by his father , Walter Sickert. It seems the forgery lies with Walter then , I wonder who really wrote it ? Intriguingly it seems to have been created at the same time as the Maybrick diary (c.1920 - 1930) , was there a production line of these things ?
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 07:00 am
Having reread the above , I think '...not good for my theory ' was a bit of an understatement !!!
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 10:43 am
Not good for Melvyn's, either, of course, and so he now disavows it. If there was indeed a "production line" for forged diaries, the evidence still suggests most strongly to me that it existed in the late 1980's - early '90s, though. All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 11:29 am
Incidentially , does anyone have Melvyn's address or E-mail address , or even his phone number ? I should like to quiz him on certain things ! Any information much appreciated ! Also , just before I go home for the day , could I repeat my request for someone to print up a piece of Abberline's actual handwriting for me to look at , I shan't be able to get to London for a while so I won't be able to obtain said info for myself. Cheers , Simon.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 03 March 2000 - 11:12 am
I have just noticed that in the A-Z there is a reference to a painting by Walter Sickert called " Jack the Ripper's room " , apparently in Manchester art gallery , UK. Has anyone seen it ?
Author: John Dixon Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 11:50 am
Simon, You're like Chicken-man ... You're everywhere. Read Knight & Harris ( on Stephenson ) carefully. They are a good read. Conspiracy theories eventually rest on provable links between the victims. Now read Paley. ... Now go back to Knight ... Now do the hard work ... & dismiss the Masons & look to other big winners & losers. Cheers John.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 10 March 2000 - 04:14 am
Manchester Art gallery is closed until Summer 2001 so no clues from the picture for another year I,m afraid. However , in Denys Suttons book on Sickert the good painter is reported as saying he actually painted a portrait of Jack the Ripper in 1906 ( before Camden Town murders ). One wonders what he looked like.
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 01:35 pm
I got back from Central America on Thursday and had 653 posts to go through most of which seem to have been about the Stephen Knigh "theory." Now I must confess that I haven't gone through every posting on this subject and indeed my delete function has been extremely valuable. I could not attempt to add much to the wise words of Stewart Evans (sorry I missed the signing) CMD, Guy Hatton and others but there are just two points I should make. 1/ the "Eddy" marriage certificate: there isn't one. The BBC looked for it, I've looked for it and I'm sure others have looked for it. It's not there and was never there. Ask anyone who has any pretensions towards genealogical knowledge to look for it and they'll come up with the same answer. It's a myth, a chimera. 2/ As far as I can see, Joseph is the only one who says that he's Walter Sickert's son. His birth certificate says he isn't and there is absolutely no evidence that he was. Sorry for the interruption Simon, please carry on. Peter.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 04:01 pm
Lovely to have you back, Peter, and thank you for the kind words. I hope your trip to Mexico was fruitful. I suppose this means we shan't see you in 27 days at the US Conference, then?
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 12:03 pm
Mexico and Central America worked out reasonably well thanks and even Newark looks pleasant enough covered with snow. I don't think that my air-miles will stretch to another flight unfortunately so although it would be great to see you all, I don't think I'll be able to make it. Maybe you'll come over here for the 2002 conference. Regretfully, I'll miss Karoline's masterly lecture on the relationship between JtR, Dr. Syn and the Devil-Doctor Fu Manchu. Peter.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 18 April 2000 - 06:42 am
Information to appear on this board on Thursday hopefully , if not then after Easter. Proper research too. Betcha can't wait !
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 20 April 2000 - 06:00 am
Dr Wendy Baron , in her book ' Sickert ' (1973) lists several sketches by Sickert including two , the first one entitled ' Restaurant Benoit , Charlotte Street , Fitzroy Square , Oct 6 , Dejueuner ( evening meal - SJO ) ' and the second one entitled ' Moreaus , Sunday 9pm , October 5th...' ; these sketches also appear in the book ' Sickert as a Printmaker '. Examining the Post Office directory for 1884 for London we are able to confirm that both these restaurants were in the Charlotte Street area : MOREAU , Armand , restauranteur , 85 Charlotte Street , Fitzroy Sq W BENOIT , Edward , restauranteur , 40 Charlotte Street , Fitzroy Sq The sketches have been confirmed by Dr Baron as being drawn in 1884. Thus we have evidence that Sickert was active in the Cleveland Street/Fitzroy Square area in the year that Annie Crook was supposed to have met Eddy. AS yet however I am not able to confirm he had a studio in Cleveland Street , merely that he was familiar with the Fitzrovia area at the beginning of his artistic career. This is supported in that when he returned from Dieppe in 1905 he rented studios in Charlotte Street and Fitzroy Square soon afterwards. The Ste Marylebone Directory of 1884 lists the rated occupiers of 22 Cleveland Street as Charlotte Horton and James Currier ; thus checking the Post Office Directory of 1884 again we find : CURRIER , James , confectioner , 22 Cleveland Street This confirms that the tobacconists at 22 Cleveland Street also sold confectionary. This is consistant with Annie Crook being described as a ' confectioner's assistant ' and working at 22 Cleveland Street.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Friday, 21 April 2000 - 01:24 pm
Interesting research Simon but remember that Sickert had been a student of Whistler's in the early 1880's and Whistler had a studio at number 8 Fitzroy Street, one which Sickert himself would one day occupy. It therefore stands to reason that Sickert would have been familiar with this area of London especially since it was an earlier version of Soho. I was most intrigued by your research into 22 Cleveland Street and James Currier, confectioner, but it raised certain questions in my mind. The first time Joseph Sickert stepped forward to tell his bizarre tale to the word was in 1973 in the BBC television series, Jack the Ripper. Sickert repeated his story in 1975 in the book, The Ripper File but with some slight additions. 1) In 1973 Joseph stated, "At that time Walter Sickert lived in the Cleveland Street area." Now, Joseph doesn't tell us when, "that time" is but presumably it was in 1884 as that is what he told Stephen Knight. In 1975 Joseph added some more details to his story. Now he stated, "At that time Walter Sickert lived at 21 Cleveland Street." Interesting, that, especially since he apparently changes his story once more in 1976 and tells Stephen Knight that Walter lived at number 15 Cleveland Street. Sickert lived at number 13 Edward Square, Kensington in 1884 until 1885 when he moved to 54 Broadhurst Gardens, Hampstead so he wasn't living "in the Cleveland Street area" or number 21 or number 15 in 1884 or later. 2) In 1973, Joseph told us, "He also met one of the shop girls who used to model for Sickert. A girl called Ann Elizabeth Crook who worked in the tobacconist's shop." No address for the tobacconists but Knight tells us that it was at Number 22 and run by Mrs. Morgan. In 1975 Joseph again added an additional detail to his original story. "He also met one of the shop girls who used to model for Sickert. A girl called Ann Elizabeth Crook who worked in a tobacconist shop opposite-at number 6." Later, Sickert, or Knight would switch her place of employment for her place of residence. Here is the question, did Joseph Sickert change the story when he talked to Knight? Or, the more likely, did Knight change Sickert's story to fit the facts of his research? Whether Mr. Currier was a confectioner who ran a tobacconist shop or a tobacconist who ran a confectioners shop at number 22 Cleveland Street is irrelevant if you are not positive where the information came from. It seems that Joseph Sickert was terribly wrong with his details but they were cleaned up by Stephen Knight for his book so instead of proving Sickert right you are probably only proving Knight's research right. Wolf.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Friday, 21 April 2000 - 03:59 pm
And as a side note, Simon, since you are reading the work of Wendy Baron, you should also know (if you have not already discovered it) that she states no link has ever been discovered between Walter Sickert and HRH Princess Alexandra, nor any connection between the Sickert family and the Danish royal family, which tends to throw doubt on the idea that Alexandra asked Walter Sickert to "tutor" PAV in the arts. I do not recall if this is mentioned in her Sickert book but it is certainly contained in Howells and Skinner's "Ripper Legacy."

Add a Message